When was the last time that Clinton tried to pose as a
statesman and harass other leaders to give
up more of their territory?

http://www.jewishworldreview.com --
IT'S A LUCKY THING that Bill Clinton is leaving the presidency of
the United States. Otherwise we would have to face the
excruciating parade of his phony "peace process"
photographs until we explode from heartburn. Since the
"search for peace" is the most venerated of all presidential
pursuits, Clinton knows that if he is photographed with his
head bowed in frustration and dejection near a shadowed
curtained window, perfectly staged by a choreographer, the
fact that he accomplished nothing about peace won't matter
compared to the fact that in his last pictures as president, he
will have created the illusion of a dedicated elder statesman.
The truth is, if Clinton cared about peace in the Middle East,
he would not be talking to Yasser Arafat at all.

Is it just a coincidence that every time a new peace process
summit is announced, another bomb explodes in Israel killing
more Jews? How many times does this have to happen
before somebody has the intelligence to wonder, "Is this
really a peace process, or just a facade to hide the fact that
the people there are really involved in a 'war process'?" How
many more Jews have to die so that Clinton, in a last
desperate gasp in office, can keep having his picture taken,
showing him imitating a statesman and pretending that we
are closer than ever to peace in the Middle East?

This brings us to the question of why did Barak, Israel's
most decorated war hero, become a partner in this
self-defeating fraudulent charade? How could a man who
almost lost his life as a soldier fighting the enemy suddenly
forget that he is dealing with the same people that seek to
destroy the state of Israel by the only means they have left
to them -- an alleged "peace process"? How did this brilliant
soldier become such a simpleton as a diplomat? How could
he be manipulated and deceived so easily by a self-serving
opportunist like Clinton and a serial smiling duplicitous
murderer like Arafat? Why would a man who is willing to
die for Israel be so ready to give so much of it away just
because the events are disguised by the title of "peace
process"?

There are no acceptable, moral answers to these questions.
The Arabs did not change their goals, they just changed their
tactics. What they could not get by confrontation, they
decided to achieve by manipulation of both Clinton and
Barak, both of whom allowed this manipulation because of
dishonorable motives.

Barak acts like a man who is suddenly struck by Alzheimer's
disease. He can't seem to remember that this is the same
enemy he fought and that it is now determined to
accomplish its same goals by different means but under
another name.

Under the pressure of a headline-hunting egomaniacal
American president, Barak has become a puppet. Clinton
has decided that Israel should give up everything for which
its people died in battle so that he could become the "Prince
of Peace." Who ever heard of a country giving up the most
coveted parts of its land to a people who tried to annihilate
it, and whom that country defeated on the field of battle?

Ordinarily, if one country invades another and loses, the
invaders are lucky if they get to flee in their underwear with
whatever possessions they have left in a suitcase under their
arm; they'd beg for mercy and at least pretend to worship
the people who allowed them to survive. Consider what
happened to the Palestinians in Jordan and Kuwait. The
Palestinians did not attack Jordan, as they did in Israel, but
Jordan nevertheless decided to kick them out of the country.
The Palestinians became victims of a hideous massacre that
saw thousands of their people slaughtered.

Similarly Palestinians were massacred, murdered, or
expelled from Kuwait -- even though, as in the case of
Jordan, the Palestinians never evidenced a determination to
attack or destroy the country. Strangely, virtually none of
the Palestinians who were kicked out of Jordan or Kuwait
ever demanded any right to return to their homelands. Why
is it that there are no international agencies that attack on
any moral or political level Jordan or Kuwait in the way
they've attacked Israel for not allowing the Palestinians'
"right of return"? When did anyone hear of Jordan or
Kuwait offering to give up parts of their land or holy sites to
the Palestinians?

When was the last time that Clinton tried to pose as a
statesman and harass the leaders of Jordan or Kuwait to give
up more of their territory? The international community is
affronted and disturbed that Israel would not give the
Palestinians their land and homes back -- land that was
never the Palestinians in the first place; land hard-won by
Israel from people who tried to destroy them. In Jordan and
Kuwait, where the Palestinians were innocent victims, not
only did they lose their land, but they also lost their very
lives.

Where is the outrage of the international community for the
injustices committed against them? When is the last time
anyone heard the Palestinians demanding vengeance against
Jordan or Kuwait for what happened to them? How many
Molotov cocktails have they tossed in Kuwait or Jordan? In
these cases where heinous crimes were committed against
the Palestinians nobody is demanding justice.

But what is happening in Israel is unparalleled in human
history. It is as if somebody tried to bomb your house, but
because they missed, not only should they suffer no
consequence but they should have the right to demand half
of your house as a reward for attempting to destroy it.
Further, they should not have to feel even a moral
commitment not to attempt to bomb you again in the future.
In effect, you should feel obligated to allow somebody to
become a tenant in your own home, so they should be in a
better position to get a clearer aim whenever they decide to
blow your brains
out.